Geoff Peterson:The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

IN HIGH SCHOOL -damn you caps lock- I got punched in the face. I left school early and walked home because I was embarrassed at my black eye. About a month later, my mom asked my what I was doing to my face. Apparently I kept reaching up and pushing it. I didn't realize it, and nothing hurt. She told me to let her have a look. My one eye seemed higher than the other. We went to the doctor and then had x-rays. It turned out to be a fracture of the orbital bone, in three places. Now I have three titanium plates in my head and twelve or thirteen screws. Nothing hurt, my vision was fine, but my skull was dismantled. I'd consider that a severe facial injury that wouldn't have affected my aim.

/didn't carry a gun in high school//if I did my aim wouldn't matter because we were so close, but the other guy would probably have gotten shot///unless he carried too; then it would have been a gun fight in economics class instead a food fight gone bad//it's cool feeling the plates and screws through my skin, but not worth the headaches and other pressure effects/5-pack of slashies

You think the officer has a black eye?

I got my nose broken in a drunken fight in a Waffle House, my eyes did not go dark until a day later.

IN HIGH SCHOOL -damn you caps lock- I got punched in the face. I left school early and walked home because I was embarrassed at my black eye. About a month later, my mom asked my what I was doing to my face. Apparently I kept reaching up and pushing it. I didn't realize it, and nothing hurt. She told me to let her have a look. My one eye seemed higher than the other. We went to the doctor and then had x-rays. It turned out to be a fracture of the orbital bone, in three places. Now I have three titanium plates in my head and twelve or thirteen screws. Nothing hurt, my vision was fine, but my skull was dismantled. I'd consider that a severe facial injury that wouldn't have affected my aim.

/didn't carry a gun in high school//if I did my aim wouldn't matter because we were so close, but the other guy would probably have gotten shot///unless he carried too; then it would have been a gun fight in economics class instead a food fight gone bad//it's cool feeling the plates and screws through my skin, but not worth the headaches and other pressure effects/5-pack of slashies

You think the officer has a black eye?

I got my nose broken in a drunken fight in a Waffle House, my eyes did not go dark until a day later.

IN HIGH SCHOOL -damn you caps lock- I got punched in the face. I left school early and walked home because I was embarrassed at my black eye. About a month later, my mom asked my what I was doing to my face. Apparently I kept reaching up and pushing it. I didn't realize it, and nothing hurt. She told me to let her have a look. My one eye seemed higher than the other. We went to the doctor and then had x-rays. It turned out to be a fracture of the orbital bone, in three places. Now I have three titanium plates in my head and twelve or thirteen screws. Nothing hurt, my vision was fine, but my skull was dismantled. I'd consider that a severe facial injury that wouldn't have affected my aim.

/didn't carry a gun in high school//if I did my aim wouldn't matter because we were so close, but the other guy would probably have gotten shot///unless he carried too; then it would have been a gun fight in economics class instead a food fight gone bad//it's cool feeling the plates and screws through my skin, but not worth the headaches and other pressure effects/5-pack of slashies

You think the officer has a black eye?

I got my nose broken in a drunken fight in a Waffle House, my eyes did not go dark until a day later.

Does he have a black eye right now?

Time will tell. The masses were quick to say gentle giant, shot in the back, etc....

IN HIGH SCHOOL -damn you caps lock- I got punched in the face. I left school early and walked home because I was embarrassed at my black eye. About a month later, my mom asked my what I was doing to my face. Apparently I kept reaching up and pushing it. I didn't realize it, and nothing hurt. She told me to let her have a look. My one eye seemed higher than the other. We went to the doctor and then had x-rays. It turned out to be a fracture of the orbital bone, in three places. Now I have three titanium plates in my head and twelve or thirteen screws. Nothing hurt, my vision was fine, but my skull was dismantled. I'd consider that a severe facial injury that wouldn't have affected my aim.

/didn't carry a gun in high school//if I did my aim wouldn't matter because we were so close, but the other guy would probably have gotten shot///unless he carried too; then it would have been a gun fight in economics class instead a food fight gone bad//it's cool feeling the plates and screws through my skin, but not worth the headaches and other pressure effects/5-pack of slashies

You think the officer has a black eye?

I got my nose broken in a drunken fight in a Waffle House, my eyes did not go dark until a day later.

Does he have a black eye right now?

Time will tell. The masses were quick to say gentle giant, shot in the back, etc....

rinasaunce:Geoff Peterson: The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

rinasaunce:Geoff Peterson: The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

/critical thinking//how does it work?

I like how you go right to the ad hominem. Whatever the guy did...he could have strangled someone, has no bearing on wether the cop was justified in shooting the farker. It is irrelevant. Like you said, it speaks to his state of mind, and maybe demonstrates that it is more likely he attacked the cop, but is irrelevant to if the cop shot a kid who was not (or no longer) resisting farking arrest. Most (all?) witnesses are saying the guy had his hands up in a surrender and was not on top of the cop actively attacking him and had no weapon, so distance is an absolute factor. WTF is wrong with you??

Umm, I must have missed that. Here was the list of demands when this first started, distributed by flyer at the protests:

- The officer involved in the shooting death of Michael Brown be IMMEDIATELY identified.- The same officer should be immediately fired and charged with murder.- The Ferguson Police Department "Protocol Handbook" be distributed throughout the Ferguson community.- The racial composition of the Ferguson Police Department should reflect the racial demographics of the community.

The last one especially. If black candidates can't meet the testing and education requirements it isn't the FPD's fault. They shouldn't lower the bar to hire people based on race.

Well, THAT doesn't sound racist in the least!I expect part of the disparity is the speed in which the demographics of Ferguson changed and the fact that most leo's retire out of a department - I doubt you'd be interested in a 2013 report that this particular department was the target of a whistle-blower on hiring practices - who was then hounded out by his brothers in blue.Lastly, and I say this with all sincerity on behalf of the black officers in our own little department - one of whom served in the Marines and is one of the most kind and wickedly sharp people I've met - you can take your segregationist-era "they prolly jest aint as smart" bs and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

In Ferguson, they should lower the bar to hire LEOs based on race, for reasons which by now ought to be evident to everyone. But to pretend that there aren't large racial disparities in results on written exams to become LEOs (or firefighters, or civil servants, or you name it) is just ignorant. You can read up on the Chicago disparate impact litigation, from the plaintiffs' perspective, here.

There's a whole cottage industry in this country designed to get around racial difference in test scores. Here's a book by one of the industry's leading lights, James L Outtz. You might want to check it out.

You say this like you imagine a press pass to be a formal industry certification, like a medical or bar license. It's not. It's basically analogous to a back-stage pass. You abso-farking-lutely do not need one to report on events in public places, nor do you need one to enjoy the first amendment protections afforded to the press. It's not a license, it's certainly not a thing that delineates "legitimate" journalists from "mere bloggers".

Geoff Peterson:maybe demonstrates that it is more likely he attacked the cop, but is irrelevant to if the cop shot a kid who was not (or no longer) resisting farking arrest. Most (all?) witnesses are saying the guy had his hands up in a surrender and was not on top of the cop actively attacking him and had no weapon, so distance is an absolute factor. WTF is wrong with you??

If, and it is a big if, that M. Brown attacked the police officer, his robbery of the store minutes before could be a motive. The robbery establishes motive. The witnesses tend to agree that there was a fight in the police car and that the officer's gun discharged in the police car.

Understand that in the middle this very fast developing event, we have a policeman in an fight with 292 pound man who had just robbed a store and the policeman's gun is discharging in his car during that struggle - you have a situation where deadly force is involved and had already been deployed. All of those things are incredibly relevant to the events that happened next in a VERY SHORT period of time.

which are what? M. Brown was not shot in the back - he was facing the officer. The question is did M. Brown attempt to surrender or was it reasonable that the policeman continued to think his life was in danger and was it reasonable for the policeman to think it was.

/There isn't a freeze or Kings-X where you get to ignore all of the interconnected facts and events that led to the shooting.

Geoff Peterson:rinasaunce: Geoff Peterson: The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

/critical thinking//how does it work?

I like how you go right to the ad hominem. Whatever the guy did...he could have strangled someone, has no bearing on wether the cop was justified in shooting the farker. It is irrelevant. Like you said, it speaks to his state of mind, and maybe demonstrates that it is more likely he attacked the cop, but is irrelevant to if the cop shot a kid who was not (or no longer) resisting farking arrest. Most (all?) witnesses are saying the guy had his hands up in a surrender and was not on top of the cop actively attacking him and had no weapon, so distance is an absolute factor. WTF is wrong with you??

Didn't you just agree with him?

Also, I think you're misusing the ad hominen objection. If you make a claim, and I say you're stupid/biased/dishonest/racist, and therefore wrong, that's an ad hominen. If I point out five logical or evidence-based reasons that you are wrong and then say only an idiot would have made your argument, well then I'm certainly a jerk, but I don't think I've committed the ad hominen fallacy. But others may know better.

rinasaunce:Geoff Peterson: maybe demonstrates that it is more likely he attacked the cop, but is irrelevant to if the cop shot a kid who was not (or no longer) resisting farking arrest. Most (all?) witnesses are saying the guy had his hands up in a surrender and was not on top of the cop actively attacking him and had no weapon, so distance is an absolute factor. WTF is wrong with you??

If, and it is a big if, that M. Brown attacked the police officer, his robbery of the store minutes before could be a motive. The robbery establishes motive. The witnesses tend to agree that there was a fight in the police car and that the officer's gun discharged in the police car.

Understand that in the middle this very fast developing event, we have a policeman in an fight with 292 pound man who had just robbed a store and the policeman's gun is discharging in his car during that struggle - you have a situation where deadly force is involved and had already been deployed. All of those things are incredibly relevant to the events that happened next in a VERY SHORT period of time.

which are what? M. Brown was not shot in the back - he was facing the officer. The question is did M. Brown attempt to surrender or was it reasonable that the policeman continued to think his life was in danger and was it reasonable for the policeman to think it was.

/There isn't a freeze or Kings-X where you get to ignore all of the interconnected facts and events that led to the shooting.

And we should have his juvenile record released. I wish when I turned 18 I could have gotten a free pass for being an asshole.

Yeah I did. You guys are misunderstanding me. If the cop had good cause to ventilate the kid, so be it. If the kid was pounding his head in, I can certainly see the cop killing the kid. If the kid was pounding the shiat out of the cop, and then surrendered and the cop shot him anyway, the cop is guilty of manslaughter at least. Anything that happened before that (even the kid beating the cop up) is irrelevant.

I'm not saying the cop is guilty and I'm not saying the kid is guilty. I am saying that the acts that happened in that span of probably less than 30 seconds is whats important and anything else is a distraction.

Geoff Peterson:I am saying that the acts that happened in that span of probably less than 30 seconds is whats important and anything else is a distraction.

You said "irrelevant strawman" earlier which was pejorative. Again, the focus will be broader than simply the last seconds of what was a very short and violent incident. Once a policeman is punched and a gun is discharged, if the cop was running after M. Brown and M. Brown turns to face him that distance could have closed very quickly and in seconds..... so yes, the entire DAY of both men will be reviewed and certainly the robbery which occurred minutes before will be relevant.

Not yet. So far it's, as you say, "admittedly not reliable." Seems to mostly consist of unsubstantiated reports that the police video was edited...when in fact, it's actually longer than the "proof!" video, which is definitely edited with bias in mind.

The weird thing IMO is that, say, CNN isn't (AFAIK) mentioning it, but they have mentioned "reports confirmed by, you know, someone" that Wilson was injured fighting Brown to an extent that would justify shooting Brown to stop him. Seems a little lop-sided.

HideAndGoFarkYourself:I'm seeing some reports on websites, that are admittedly not reliable, that surveillance video shows Brown paying for the cigars, any reputable sources for that?

Here is the thread with a link to the video. All it shows is that it's possible he could have paid for them. What it looks like to me:

1) Brown gets a pack of Swisher Sweets from the cashier, passes them back to Jackson.2) Brown talks to the cashier, moving a hand onto/past the portion of the counter visible on the video with enough time off-screen to conceivably pay for something.3) Brown brings his hands back with several items from the other side of the counter; some fall out of his hand on the floor.4) Jackson places the box of Swisher Sweets he was handed back on the counter and Brown appears to give back the items he still has as well (his hand passes the range of the camera and I don't see anything in it when he brings it back down to his side, but it's his left hand which is partially obscured and the video is standard security quality AKA poor).5) Brown bends down and starts picking up the dropped items.6) Clerk walks out from behind counter around Brown to the front door, not attempting to pick up the items or stop Brown at this point.7) Brown gets up with the items he picked up and heads for the door.

Not yet. So far it's, as you say, "admittedly not reliable." Seems to mostly consist of unsubstantiated reports that the police video was edited...when in fact, it's actually longer than the "proof!" video, which is definitely edited with bias in mind.

The weird thing IMO is that, say, CNN isn't (AFAIK) mentioning it, but they have mentioned "reports confirmed by, you know, someone" that Wilson was injured fighting Brown to an extent that would justify shooting Brown to stop him. Seems a little lop-sided.

The internets' dumbest man posted his pile o vomit earlier than the "guy paid for cigars" storyline. That this injury tale was already discredited before CNN or FOXnews picked it up is funny, but also might mean you'll see that storyline in another week.

HideAndGoFarkYourself:I'm seeing some reports on websites, that are admittedly not reliable, that surveillance video shows Brown paying for the cigars, any reputable sources for that?

None that I am aware of - watch the video. If M. Brown did pay, why did the clerk pursue him and M. Brown manhandle the clerk? Why did his friend, D. Johnson admit that M. Brown robbed the store? Someone from the store also immediately called 911....

/I think some people desperately want there to not be a store robbery - The attorney for M. Brown claimed it was "character assassination" when the video was released.

Grungehamster:HideAndGoFarkYourself: I'm seeing some reports on websites, that are admittedly not reliable, that surveillance video shows Brown paying for the cigars, any reputable sources for that?

Here is the thread with a link to the video. All it shows is that it's possible he could have paid for them. What it looks like to me:

1) Brown gets a pack of Swisher Sweets from the cashier, passes them back to Jackson.2) Brown talks to the cashier, moving a hand onto/past the portion of the counter visible on the video with enough time off-screen to conceivably pay for something.3) Brown brings his hands back with several items from the other side of the counter; some fall out of his hand on the floor.4) Jackson places the box of Swisher Sweets he was handed back on the counter and Brown appears to give back the items he still has as well (his hand passes the range of the camera and I don't see anything in it when he brings it back down to his side, but it's his left hand which is partially obscured and the video is standard security quality AKA poor).5) Brown bends down and starts picking up the dropped items.6) Clerk walks out from behind counter around Brown to the front door, not attempting to pick up the items or stop Brown at this point.7) Brown gets up with the items he picked up and heads for the door.

rinasaunce:Geoff Peterson: The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

/critical thinking//how does it work?

I see M Brown is being tried by the public

I wonder if an attorney could argue his *prior bad acts* as the perpetrator in a *closed* case should not be evidence in a criminal case defending Ofc Wilson's actions.

Grungehamster:6) Clerk walks out from behind counter around Brown to the front door, not attempting to pick up the items or stop Brown at this point.7) Brown gets up with the items he picked up and heads for the door.

Where in this narrative is the step where Brown grabs the clerk and shoves him against a rack?

And then when the clerk reapproaches Brown, where is the step where M. Brown advances on the clerk as if to beat him so the clerk flinches in fear and cowers?

rinasaunce:Geoff Peterson: I am saying that the acts that happened in that span of probably less than 30 seconds is whats important and anything else is a distraction.

You said "irrelevant strawman" earlier which was pejorative. Again, the focus will be broader than simply the last seconds of what was a very short and violent incident. Once a policeman is punched and a gun is discharged, if the cop was running after M. Brown and M. Brown turns to face him that distance could have closed very quickly and in seconds..... so yes, the entire DAY of both men will be reviewed and certainly the robbery which occurred minutes before will be relevant.

Sure...if you're wanting to come up with an excuse for murder, absolutely.

I wonder if an attorney could argue his *prior bad acts* as the perpetrator in a *closed* case should not be evidence in a criminal case defending Ofc Wilson's actions.

I think both the officer and M. Brown are being tried by the public.

M. Brown's actions on the store are relevant but not determinative. As for prior bad acts being excluded, this act occurred minutes before the officer pulled over M. Brown and goes to M. Brown's possible motive in his interactions with the officer. The criminal case, if any, will be charging the officer. The officer's prior bad acts, unless a pattern was established, would be excluded. The bad act of the victim having occurred so close to his death by the officer's gun will not be excluded.

Geoff Peterson:Sure...if you're wanting to come up with an excuse for murder, absolutely.

What? I think the prosecutor, the grand jury, the police, the feds and the attorney for the officer would like to understand everything that led up to and happened during the events. Were you aware that D. Johnson was also wanted on an outstanding warrant?

If he were your witness for the prosection, wouldn't you want to know that fact?

dr_blasto:where's the scuffle between the two of them? I never saw the video.

rinasaunce:Grungehamster: 6) Clerk walks out from behind counter around Brown to the front door, not attempting to pick up the items or stop Brown at this point.7) Brown gets up with the items he picked up and heads for the door.

Where in this narrative is the step where Brown grabs the clerk and shoves him against a rack?

And then when the clerk reapproaches Brown, where is the step where M. Brown advances on the clerk as if to beat him so the clerk flinches in fear and cowers?

Why was 911 called immediately afterwards reporting a store robbery?

AND WHY did D. Johnson admit M. Brown robbed the store?

/really?

It's not the same camera that caught the altercation. The camera on the counter is angled slightly down from on top of the door, so Brown has already moved past the field of vision of it when he's stopped. It's another video that shows him try to leave, get grabbed by the clerk, push the clerk away, and then physically threaten him. Crooks & Liars tries to claim "hey, maybe their argument was unrelated to the goods being stolen" but I find that laughable. And yes: Johnson's lawyer admitted Brown stole the cigars.

I should have also copy/pasted the first half of that post from me in the link; I think anyone genuinely arguing he didn't steal anything is crazy. It might provide evidence that he didn't get the cigarettes initially through force but rather deception (which doesn't disagree with the police report), but him not stealing them at all strains credulity to the breaking point. I'm just pointing out what can be seen on the video, which definitely isn't any clear sign money changed hands and they appear to return all the items to the cashier after holding them except for the ones that had dropped; that he dropped the exact amount he paid for is also pretty strange to imagine.

Umm, I must have missed that. Here was the list of demands when this first started, distributed by flyer at the protests:

- The officer involved in the shooting death of Michael Brown be IMMEDIATELY identified.- The same officer should be immediately fired and charged with murder.- The Ferguson Police Department "Protocol Handbook" be distributed throughout the Ferguson community.- The racial composition of the Ferguson Police Department should reflect the racial demographics of the community.

The last one especially. If black candidates can't meet the testing and education requirements it isn't the FPD's fault. They shouldn't lower the bar to hire people based on race.

Well, THAT doesn't sound racist in the least!I expect part of the disparity is the speed in which the demographics of Ferguson changed and the fact that most leo's retire out of a department - I doubt you'd be interested in a 2013 report that this particular department was the target of a whistle-blower on hiring practices - who was then hounded out by his brothers in blue.Lastly, and I say this with all sincerity on behalf of the black officers in our own little department - one of whom served in the Marines and is one of the most kind and wickedly sharp people I've met - you can take your segregationist-era "they prolly jest aint as smart" bs and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

In Ferguson, they should lower the bar to hire LEOs based on race, for reasons which by now ought to be evident to everyone. But to pretend that there aren't large racial disparities in results on written exams to become LEOs (or firefighters, or civil servants, or you name it) is just ignorant. You can read up on the Chicago disparate impact litigation, from the plaintiffs' perspective, here.

http://www.kenlaw.com/representative/d ...

The original point was the protestor's list of demands. The last one demands a change to the racial imbalance in the dept - it says nothing about lowering or changing standards in any way.

Not one peep about changing hiring practices - someone went there immediately, assuming something slightly negative about black applicants' ability to qualify under current standards. But, that can't be racist.

When people say "we have a culture problem" this is what they mean.

You're backing it up to prove his point is illustrative of our schools malfunctioning which is a whole other topic.

rinasaunce:What? I think the prosecutor, the grand jury, the police, the feds and the attorney for the officer would like to understand everything that led up to and happened during the events. Were you aware that D. Johnson was also wanted on an outstanding warrant?

If he were your witness for the prosection, wouldn't you want to know that fact?

/I take it you have no idea what attorney's do in a court room....

I've already said that if the kid was attacking the cop, he would be justified in killing the kid. I also think eye witness testimony will tell the tale, by and large. I think the cops testimony will be worth 10 nubian testifiers as it always has been, and I think the cop will get a walk.

I think it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that someone getting ready to start the next phase of his life would strong arm rob and then assault a cop and continue to advance on a cop after a cop draws his weapon and threatens to shoot him. It makes no sense.

Also stop trying to imply I am mentally deficient if you don't even know how to use an apostrophe, asshole.

The original point was the protestor's list of demands. The last one demands a change to the racial imbalance in the dept - it says nothing about lowering or changing standards in any way.

I'm not being facetious when I ask this...how exactly would that be accomplished? I mean, I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that we're looking at three possibilities here: not many black residents apply, not many black residents are qualified/pass, or the people in charge of hiring are just racists.

The last one is its own thing, but how do you really fix the first two? If the former, my best suggestion at the moment is using some of their toy budget to maybe recruit elsewhere...

Umm, I must have missed that. Here was the list of demands when this first started, distributed by flyer at the protests:

- The officer involved in the shooting death of Michael Brown be IMMEDIATELY identified.- The same officer should be immediately fired and charged with murder.- The Ferguson Police Department "Protocol Handbook" be distributed throughout the Ferguson community.- The racial composition of the Ferguson Police Department should reflect the racial demographics of the community.

The last one especially. If black candidates can't meet the testing and education requirements it isn't the FPD's fault. They shouldn't lower the bar to hire people based on race.

Well, THAT doesn't sound racist in the least!I expect part of the disparity is the speed in which the demographics of Ferguson changed and the fact that most leo's retire out of a department - I doubt you'd be interested in a 2013 report that this particular department was the target of a whistle-blower on hiring practices - who was then hounded out by his brothers in blue.Lastly, and I say this with all sincerity on behalf of the black officers in our own little department - one of whom served in the Marines and is one of the most kind and wickedly sharp people I've met - you can take your segregationist-era "they prolly jest aint as smart" bs and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

In Ferguson, they should lower the bar to hire LEOs based on race, for reasons which by now ought to be evident to everyone. But to pretend that there aren't large racial disparities in results on written exams to become LEOs (or firefighters, or civil servants, or you name it) is just ignorant. You can read up on the Chicago disparate impact litigation, from the plaintiffs' perspective, here.

http://www.kenlaw.com/repre ...[snip]

- someone went there immediately, assuming something slightly negative about black applicants' ability to qualify under current standards. But, that can't be racist.

When people say "we have a culture problem" this is what they mean.

You're backing it up to prove his point is illustrative of our schools malfunctioning which is a whole other topic.

Right, and you said that anyone thinking that there would be a disparity is a racist asshole, because YOU know a smart black LEO. Not very sound reasoning, though I'm reluctant to blame the schools for it.

Geoff Peterson:I think it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that someone getting ready to start the next phase of his life would strong arm rob

Well, M. Brown did do that..... he strong arm robbed the store. It might not make any sense to you but it happens. Daily it seems (like college athletes, of all color, who assault girlfriends or strangers, rob stores, even a Heisman trophy winner who stole king crab). Maybe you should read more...

Geoff Peterson:Also stop trying to imply I am mentally deficient if you don't even know how to use an apostrophe, asshole.

I did not imply it, I stated it outright. Perhaps it simply takes one to know one.

rinasaunce:Geoff Peterson: The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

/critical thinking//how does it work?

Funny in all of this, nobody asks what the cop did to deserve the beating?

I mean, people don't just walk up to cops and cave their faces in, he must have said SOMETHING to set off Mr. Brown, and I'm sure this all could have been avoided if the cop had just watched his mouth.

(It doesn't sound any less stupid when you say it about Michael Brown).

I wonder if an attorney could argue his *prior bad acts* as the perpetrator in a *closed* case should not be evidence in a criminal case defending Ofc Wilson's actions.

I think both the officer and M. Brown are being tried by the public.

M. Brown's actions on the store are relevant but not determinative. As for prior bad acts being excluded, this act occurred minutes before the officer pulled over M. Brown and goes to M. Brown's possible motive in his interactions with the officer. The criminal case, if any, will be charging the officer. The officer's prior bad acts, unless a pattern was established, would be excluded. The bad act of the victim having occurred so close to his death by the officer's gun will not be excluded.

I remember this part from the Zimmerman threads.

Everyone was a cross between Perry Mason and Sherlock Holmes with a dash of the CSI cast for emphasis.

I guess, like Zimmerman, we will find out in the end what the strategies are

udhq:Funny in all of this, nobody asks what the cop did to deserve the beating?

I mean, people don't just walk up to cops and cave their faces in, he must have said SOMETHING to set off Mr. Brown, and I'm sure this all could have been avoided if the cop had just watched his mouth.

(It doesn't sound any less stupid when you say it about Michael Brown).

Actually, I think you are exactly right to question - how DID this escalate so quickly? D. Johnson's initial statement said he and M. Brown "didn't do nothing to nobody", the cop and M. Brown had a fight over the door and then boom.

Everyone seems to agree there was a shot in the car - was there a fight in the car? I have no clue..... Why was the officer's gun drawn??????

rinasaunce:udhq: Funny in all of this, nobody asks what the cop did to deserve the beating?

I mean, people don't just walk up to cops and cave their faces in, he must have said SOMETHING to set off Mr. Brown, and I'm sure this all could have been avoided if the cop had just watched his mouth.

(It doesn't sound any less stupid when you say it about Michael Brown).

Actually, I think you are exactly right to question - how DID this escalate so quickly? D. Johnson's initial statement said he and M. Brown "didn't do nothing to nobody", the cop and M. Brown had a fight over the door and then boom.

Everyone seems to agree there was a shot in the car - was there a fight in the car? I have no clue..... Why was the officer's gun drawn??????

It doesn't matter what the cop said. Nothing anyone says permits you to attack them

parasol:rinasaunce: Geoff Peterson: The fact that you think it is important shows you to be easily distracted and lacking reasoning ability.

/It's an irrelevant strawman.

You are a very silly man. The fact that a person, any person, who was involved in an altercation with a police officer was just leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery is absolutely relevant. It goes to the immediate actions of M. Brown prior to the incident and it reflects his state of mind.

It is clearly not determinative, but only an imbecile would say it is an irrelevant strawman.

/critical thinking//how does it work?

I see M Brown is being tried by the public

I wonder if an attorney could argue his *prior bad acts* as the perpetrator in a *closed* case should not be evidence in a criminal case defending Ofc Wilson's actions.

Not if the "closed" case is a direct result of the actions in the case the guy is on trial for. Typically a motion in limine, which is about the only thing I can think of that would apply, refers to a defendant and only for evidence which would prejudice a jury to him. Wilson's state of mind, and the state of mind of the deceased are essential in proving your case beyond a reasonable doubt, or acquitting by planting reasonable doubt. Any attempt by a judge to block testimony about the armed robbery that ultimately likely caused the confrontation would be struck down on appeal.

The original point was the protestor's list of demands. The last one demands a change to the racial imbalance in the dept - it says nothing about lowering or changing standards in any way.

I'm not being facetious when I ask this...how exactly would that be accomplished? I mean, I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that we're looking at three possibilities here: not many black residents apply, not many black residents are qualified/pass, or the people in charge of hiring are just racists.

The last one is its own thing, but how do you really fix the first two? If the former, my best suggestion at the moment is using some of their toy budget to maybe recruit elsewhere...

sure

Offer qualifying officers early retirement and have council approve outlay to cover gap - that frees up space and the budget (long term = top pay) to hire add'l officers (first step); in a pinch it is also possible to hire several part time officers - this also frees up budget space while increasing visible changes to the deptAdvertise openings widely - the residents did not demand "hire locals only" - if they truly, positively can't find one single black applicant who qualifies there are larger issues than we know of;Begin a neighborhood familiarity program - one here was called "broken widows" or something - or hell, crime watch - that officers attend alongside with residents.

None of it matters now, this Department won't be around in two years. Lawsuits and o/t pay are going to eat the budget of a small tax base and, apparently, the Feds are unhappy. The people of Ferguson will likely be covered by another muni's pd - and, in that? they may get that last demand after all

Umm, I must have missed that. Here was the list of demands when this first started, distributed by flyer at the protests:

- The officer involved in the shooting death of Michael Brown be IMMEDIATELY identified.- The same officer should be immediately fired and charged with murder.- The Ferguson Police Department "Protocol Handbook" be distributed throughout the Ferguson community.- The racial composition of the Ferguson Police Department should reflect the racial demographics of the community.

The last one especially. If black candidates can't meet the testing and education requirements it isn't the FPD's fault. They shouldn't lower the bar to hire people based on race.

Right, and you said that anyone thinking that there would be a disparity is a racist asshole, because YOU know a smart black LEO. Not very sound reasoning, though I'm reluctant to blame the schools for it.

Actually, I didn't say that at all - I said it sounded racist (it did) and that mindset was outdated and should be unwelcome and disposed of. Nor did he say there would be a disparity - he said they'd have to lower/change standards to accommodate an entire group, not that there might be fewer passing candidates under the current standard.

I know a number of smart people, none them are the reason I disliked that post,

Geoff Peterson:rinasaunce: What? I think the prosecutor, the grand jury, the police, the feds and the attorney for the officer would like to understand everything that led up to and happened during the events. Were you aware that D. Johnson was also wanted on an outstanding warrant?

If he were your witness for the prosection, wouldn't you want to know that fact?

/I take it you have no idea what attorney's do in a court room....

I've already said that if the kid was attacking the cop, he would be justified in killing the kid. I also think eye witness testimony will tell the tale, by and large. I think the cops testimony will be worth 10 nubian testifiers as it always has been, and I think the cop will get a walk.

I think it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that someone getting ready to start the next phase of his life would strong arm rob and then assault a cop and continue to advance on a cop after a cop draws his weapon and threatens to shoot him. It makes no sense.

Also stop trying to imply I am mentally deficient if you don't even know how to use an apostrophe, asshole.

Problem is almost every eye witness testimony aside from the one who has already proven to be a liar (his friend) and maybe one other, saw the events after the gun shots started. The entire question of motive for the officer happens prior to the first bullet going off, and the few notes we've gotten have indicated at least something of a struggle (altercation at the car with brown being pulled towards it if I have my facts correct from the one who said they saw but couldn't hear everything).